Dear Rémi, > Maybe it would be better to only cover specifications for which drafts are > available. > (I found the two "DSlite?" columns confusing, with no document to check their > validity.)
I considered this, but then decided to do it this way since as far as I understand, DS-Lite RFC doesn't say what IPv4 address and UDP/TCP port allocation policy must be supported. The same goes for provisioning additional IPv4 addresses and port ranges. Is this correct? > Also, some of us are currently working on separating the 4rd "stateless > address mapping" from its possible application to various encapsulation and > translation mechanisms. > When done, hopefully soon, this could influence the way to structure your > comparison table. This would indeed be very useful. I will certainly work on it as soon as the document is publicly available. Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
